[IANAtransition] Liu Yueâs Comments for the Proposal

Michel S. Gauthier mg at telepresse.com
Thu May 8 22:16:07 UTC 2014

At 16:59 08/05/2014, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Second, given the importance of the transition of IANA function 
>stewardship and the establishment of the Steering Group, the time 
>calling for public inputs should be extended. It is expected to 
>extend the deadline from May 8 to May 31 at least, so that all the 
>stakeholders have more enough time to fully study the draft and 
>provide constructive suggestion.
>Absolutely against this suggestion,

Dear Seun,

do you really think that your comment sounds responsible when 
considering the stakes, and conforts the credibility of this list 
process? Do you really believe that the world can "be unilaterally 
global" under ICANN (or any other one)? and the MS process is to obey 
Brian Carpenter's "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised"?

Many people seem trying to loyally come-up with diplomatic responses 
to what is also perceived as an NTIA/ICANN ultimatum or, at least, 
pressure. We all know that this debate will only practically and 
contractually terminate on 09/09/2019. Don't you think we would give 
a better chance to a reasonable solution to emerge if it can stay an 
MS process among heads of states rather than head lines?

That is, unless you think it is not in the best common interest? In 
such a case your rationale would be interesting?

>  if those stakeholder were indeed interested in this process then 
> they should have posted their comments before now. Its amazing the 
> number of contributions sent-in in the last 24hours. This call for 
> comment started a month ago and i think its just un-necessary to 
> extend the call period as it will only mean another little or no 
> contribution until the last day when we experience another rush hour.
>On a lighter note, perhaps posting contribution late is also a 
>strategy to avoid such contribution being criticised by other 
>stakeholders on the list, which IMO defeats the purpose of this 
>list; The contributions posted should be talked about and 
>ianatransition team should observe consensus on the list and 
>determine way forward based on that.

Is this not why precisely Liu Yue's suggestion looks pertinent. 
Should there not be a synthesis of the contributions having 
been  made so far, in order to permit a second common thinking round. 
And another one, etc. Until the multi-consensus the NTIA expects does 
emerge? Or, have I not understood how an MS process works?


>On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM, 
><mailto:liuyue at igr.org.cn>liuyue at igr.org.cn 
><<mailto:liuyue at igr.org.cn>liuyue at igr.org.cn> wrote:
>Dear Convenor,
>Thank you for your effors to call for comments related to the 
>transition of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions. My 
>contribution is attached.Â
>LIU Yue
>Scholar of Institute of Governance Research
>ianatransition mailing list
><mailto:ianatransition at icann.org>ianatransition at icann.org
>Seun Ojedeji,
>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>web:Â  Â  Â  <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>Mobile: +2348035233535
>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> 
><mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>ianatransition mailing list
>ianatransition at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/attachments/20140509/ca73d088/attachment.html>

More information about the ianatransition mailing list